Coda Create Doc

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) with open-world effects. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it returns the new doc's ID, name, and URL, and specifies the folder/root placement behavior. It does not cover permission requirements or failure modes, but that is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and remains fairly tight. The second sentence slightly restates the first ('Create a new Coda doc' vs 'Creates a blank doc or a copy'), making it not maximally concise, but every sentence still carries useful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity, annotations, and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers both creation modes, the default folder behavior, the cloning option, and even previews return values, so an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description largely repeats the schema: 'folder or root' mirrors folder_id documentation, and 'use source_doc to clone' is equivalent to the schema's 'copy as a starting point.' It adds no significant parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create a new Coda doc'), then immediately clarifies the two modes (blank doc or copy of an existing doc). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like coda_create_page or coda_create_folder, which operate on different resources.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explains how to create a blank doc versus a copy, states the default folder behavior, and instructs to use source_doc to clone an existing doc as a template. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for similar tasks.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.